NCMR Vol. 9, No. 2 in Press

NCMR Vol. 9, No. 2 in Press

Negotiation and Conflict Management Research
© The International Association for Conflict Management (IACM) and Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Michael A. Gross, Editor-in-Chief
Colorado State University

NCMR Volume 9, Issue 2
May 2016
Now Online

Articles:

Conflict at Work, Negative Emotions, and Performance:  A Diary Study

Sonja Rispens and Evangelia Demerouti

Department of Industrial Engineering and Innovation Sciences – Human Performance Management Group, Eindhoven University of Technology, Eindhoven, The Netherlands

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12069

Abstract

This study examines how daily conflict events at work affect people’s active (anger, contempt) and passive (sadness, guilt) negative emotions and in- and extra-role performance. We introduce the concept of conflict detachment and examined whether this coping strategy alleviates the degree of negative emotions a person feels due to a conflict experience. Sixty-two individuals from various professions in the Netherlands provided questionnaire and daily survey measures during five consecutive workdays. Multilevel analyses showed that daily relationship and process conflict experiences at work were positively related to daily negative emotions. In addition, the results demonstrated a lagged effect of passive negative emotions: feelings of guilt and sadness predicted lower in-role and extra-role performance the following day. We also found that conflict detachment moderated the relationship between daily conflict and negative emotions. We discuss the implications of our findings for organizational practice and suggest possible ways for future research.


Choosing a Group Representative: The Impact of Perceived Organizational Support on the Preferences for Deviant Representatives in Work Negotiations

Stéphanie Demoulin, Cátia Pinto Teixeira, Céline Gillis, Edwine Goldoni and Florence Stinglhamber

Université catholique de Louvain, Louvain-la-Neuve, Belgium

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12070

Abstract

Group representative selection in negotiation is a topic that has only recently attracted researchers’ attention. This article focuses on workplace negotiations and examines how employees’ selection of representatives depends on their level of perceived organizational support (POS). We predict and show that employees who experience high levels of POS send to the negotiation table in-group representatives who are perceived as close to (rather than distant from) the management team. The first study establishes the effect. The second study replicates the findings and investigates the underlying mechanisms. Results show that POS impacts endorsement of pro-management representatives through an increased perception that these deviant members are typical of the employee’s group. Change in perceived typicality is triggered by POS directly and via an increase in employees’ organizational identification. We discuss of the positive and negative consequences for groups who send to the negotiation representatives who are close to the opposing group.


More Than Just “Blowing off Steam”: The Roles of Anger and Advocacy in Promoting Positive Outcomes at Work

Lisa T. Stickney1 and Deanna Geddes2

1 Management & International Business, University of Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, U.S.A.
2 Department of Human Resource Management, Fox School of Business, Temple University, Philadelphia, PA, U.S.A.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12071

Abstract

Employee anger can be suppressed or quieted so that angry individuals only vent frustrations to supportive colleagues, rather than approach those responsible or in an organizational position to help remedy the problematic situation. The Dual Threshold Model (Geddes & Callister, 2007) argues that although these “muted anger” venting episodes may increase unfavorable organizational outcomes, they also may prompt participants or observers of these displays to engage in advocacy or surrogacy on behalf of an angry colleague. The research reported here empirically tests this proposition and reports that advocating on behalf of one’s angry colleague can enhance individual relationships at work as well as organizational functioning. Findings also show that observer felt anger intensity is a primary motivator for prompting anger advocacy and, surprisingly, advocacy is less likely on behalf of close colleagues.


How Superior–Subordinate Relationship Quality and Conflict Management Styles Influence an Employee’s Use of Upward Dissent Tactics

Valeska Redmond1, Jessica Katz Jameson2, and Andrew R. Binder2

1 Communication, Rhetoric and Digital Media, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, U.S.A.
2 Department of Communication, North Carolina State University, Raleigh, NC, U.S.A.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12072

Abstract

This study examined employees’ use of upward dissent tactics to express disagreement with organizational policies or practices to their supervisors. Employees (N = 242) from three organizations completed a survey instrument in which they reported the types of upward dissent tactics and types of conflict management styles they used with their supervisors as well as their perceptions of the quality of those relationships. The integrating conflict management style was positively correlated with the prosocial dissent tactic and negatively correlated with the threatening resignation dissent tactic. The dominating conflict management style was positively correlated with threatening resignation, circumvention, and repetition dissent tactics. When looking at relationships between the use of upward dissent tactics, superior–subordinate relationship quality, and conflict management styles, we found that conflict management styles were a stronger predictor of the use of upward dissent tactics than superior–subordinate relationship quality. Implications for employee voice are discussed.


An Exploration of the Structure of Effective Apologies

Roy J. Lewicki1, Beth Polin2 and Robert B. Lount Jr.1

1 Max. M. Fisher College of Business, The Ohio State University, Columbus, OH, U.S.A.
2 School of Business, Eastern Kentucky University, Richmond, KY, U.S.A.

http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/ncmr.12073

Abstract

Violations of trust are an unfortunate but common occurrence in conflict and negotiation settings: negotiators make promises that they do not keep; parties in conflict behave in unexpected ways, escalating tensions and breaking past trust. What often follows these violations is some form of an account, specifically an apology, in an effort to repair that trust. But are some apologies more effective than others? Two studies reported here examine the structural components of apologies. Six components of an apology were defined from previous research and presented to subjects—singly and in combination—in the form of component definitions and in the context of a trust violation scenario. Results indicate that not all apologies are viewed equally; apologies with more components were more effective than those with fewer components, and certain components were deemed more important than others. Moreover, apologies following competence-based trust violations were seen as more effective than apologies following integrity-based violations. Implications and future directions for research in the structure of effective apologies are presented.

 

For more see: http://www.iacm-conflict.org/Publications/NCMR/